Make all campaigns have a max amount to spend on it, have it be provided by the state, and have set amounts of television and radio time, so each candidate has exactly the same amount as his or her opponent, so its the politics that matter, not the money. (Would also go a long way towards removing negative adds - do you REALLY want to spend x% of your alloted time smearing your opponent, when (s)he can just keep talking politics leaving you less time to get your message out?)

Yeah, I know, it will neve rhappen (it wouldn't even in our nice socialistic scandinavian "paradises")

"Hi, I'm Billy Joe Bob from the Billy Joe Bob party. I collected me some 25,000 signatures while on unemployment so I could start my own political party. Now give me my 10 million for campaign advertising so I can spend it at Billy Joe Bob's Video Productions Inc. to make my campaign commercial."

"Hi, I'm Willard Thornton III. I invested $1 million of my own money to hire people to collect signatures so I could establish my own political party. Please give me my $10 million for campaign expenses. I happen to know an artist who will design my campaign artwork for a mere $10 million. His name is Willard Thornton IV."

Nooska wrote:Well could just ban political adds from tv/radio apart from those the candidates can get to (It works, we have 0 political adds in Denmark, they are all banned, but I think it would be okay to open up for candidate adds (US system) or party adds (european systems) as long as each candidate/party was given equal amount of access/time)

I have no knowledge of Fox News to say either way (though the comments lead me to say "yes"), though I wouldn't ban political commentary, just political adds (it works around here, but our 2 real stations (apart from the ones that just broadcat series and movies) are both partially and exclusively (respectively) publicly funded, so they go out of their way to avoid bias.

And yes, if you get the needed signature, you should have equal airtime - why should Willard Thornton III be a bigger presence than Billy Joe Bob? both have the same public support behind running for office, that is, after all, the point of requiring signatures, is it not?Now, for actual money, I think it needs to be divvied up into airtime (TV and radio) which is given by the networks equally, and paid for directly by the state, and then an amount for other campaign paraphanelia - around here that would be posters etc.

If you have a candidate who cooks well and wants to personally entice people by serving food, go for it, thats still limited by the candidate's time and being only 1 place at a time, as well as actually being a person of that inkling (I have a hard time seeing someone like Francis Underwood doing something like that personally - just to grab a fictional politician).

See, it's not about intelligence, it's about trying. Politicians can't get past the idea that the only possible way to fail in America is if you sit back and do nothing. The idea that someone can put out the effort, yet not gain ground is inconceivable to them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/2 ... lp00000003Walker, a first-term Republican facing re-election next year, said he would offset the tax cuts and spending increases contained in his 2013-2015 budget by redirecting some funds away from public schools and healthcare, freezing aid to local governments and selling off state assets such as power plants.

Nooska wrote:I have no knowledge of Fox News to say either way (though the comments lead me to say "yes"), though I wouldn't ban political commentary, just political adds (it works around here, but our 2 real stations (apart from the ones that just broadcat series and movies) are both partially and exclusively (respectively) publicly funded, so they go out of their way to avoid bias.

And yes, if you get the needed signature, you should have equal airtime - why should Willard Thornton III be a bigger presence than Billy Joe Bob? both have the same public support behind running for office, that is, after all, the point of requiring signatures, is it not?Now, for actual money, I think it needs to be divvied up into airtime (TV and radio) which is given by the networks equally, and paid for directly by the state, and then an amount for other campaign paraphanelia - around here that would be posters etc.

If you have a candidate who cooks well and wants to personally entice people by serving food, go for it, thats still limited by the candidate's time and being only 1 place at a time, as well as actually being a person of that inkling (I have a hard time seeing someone like Francis Underwood doing something like that personally - just to grab a fictional politician).

Fox is a major TV network - the one that originally broadcast "The Simpsons" and "Firefly" - that tends to openly favour one political party over the other. It is not uncommon to see "spelling mistakes" like "Barack Osama" among other less-subtle jibes. Their editorial content pretty much mirrors Republican doctrine. You could, without much stretch of the truth, call their news programs commercials for the Republican party.

The point I was making about Billy Joe Bob and Mr. Thornton III is that abuse of public campaign funding could be rampant. Theoretically you can't limit it to only two political parties, but only those two have a chance in hell of reaching the White House. But other "parties" could demand equal funding to compete. Some can be made up just to cash in on the advertising funds, Like Billy and T3. Billy sucks $10 million from the public kitty and pays it to his own video company, while Mr T3 spends his own money to get a 1000% return that he launders through his son.

See, it's not about intelligence, it's about trying. Politicians can't get past the idea that the only possible way to fail in America is if you sit back and do nothing. The idea that someone can put out the effort, yet not gain ground is inconceivable to them.

fuzzygeek wrote:Do you not think other media outlets have their own biases that openly favour one political party over the other?

Nothing like Fox does (well, except maybe MSNBC). Media do have their bias, but even though journalists may be left-leaning owners are even more often right-leaning. And only a minority of media starts with party loyalties and then use that to set their policies, mostly media that is outright owned by the party in question. The more normal state of affairs is for the newspaper or TV channel to have a set of institutional ethics and then support the parties who line up with that.

Fox isn't really anything new, but they are undeniably an arm of the Republican party.

Koatanga wrote:Fox is a major TV network - the one that originally broadcast "The Simpsons" and "Firefly" - that tends to openly favour one political party over the other.

Do you not think other media outlets have their own biases that openly favour one political party over the other?

Absence of bias is impossible, but many news outlets at least try to balance things, making distinct separation between "hard news" and "editorial content". Fox News is unabashedly Republican with only a token few voices of opposition thrown in for excitement. They blur the line between news and editorial to the extent that it's not visible.

Koatanga wrote:The point I was making about Billy Joe Bob and Mr. Thornton III is that abuse of public campaign funding could be rampant. Theoretically you can't limit it to only two political parties, but only those two have a chance in hell of reaching the White House. But other "parties" could demand equal funding to compete. Some can be made up just to cash in on the advertising funds, Like Billy and T3. Billy sucks $10 million from the public kitty and pays it to his own video company, while Mr T3 spends his own money to get a 1000% return that he launders through his son.

Well it wouldn't be abuse if they can get the signatories to actually run, and no, it shouldn't be limited to 2 parties (thats no better than limiting it to 1 party from a democratic standpoint). The abuse wouldn't be rampant due to f.ex. airtime being limited and not being paid for by the candidate/campaign, but allotted by the networks themselves (would of course need some sort of oversight so the networks couldn't favor one candidate with no recourse) and payed by the "[Federal/State] Election Fund" directly.Also, its quite easy to put in safeguards in regards to the thought of examples; namely that you cannot use the campaign materials part of the "grant" to benefit relatives (et al)and that you cannot use newly created companies (for lack of a better descriptor), and that you have to provide bills that show you payed fair market value. Also it would be easy to simply not dole out all teh grant at once, but have it like an account you could tap in to by providing a bill - if every candidate would have to do it that way the actors of the market for campaign materials, would have a federal/state guarantee for their money, so no reason to not simply bill and send it off for payment.

are their slogans, and it's anything but. One of the their on air personalities actually RUNS a billion dollar Super PAC Republican Party Advertising conglomerate. When MIttens lost in November, his on air melt down was HISTORIC

The biggest theory, is that Fox uses Fox news to attone for some of the terrible things that they do. Personally, I think they realized that sensationalism, and conservatism have a big enough following in the US that they have canned it, put it on the news, and developed a rampant, cult following. If you know someone who "likes" Fox News, they will defend the channel with a fervor. It's weird.

Fascinating. The talk of finance reform and random hyperventilating reminded me of an article I read a number of years ago breaking down journalist campaign donations by party. Spoiler: they all trend towards one spectrum -- even those at Fox, oddly enough -- although I'm sure some people will just argue it's because the evil folks at Fox are just better at being sneaky bastards.

It's interesting how some people are so passionate about Fox and don't understand how other people can feel the mirror image about other news outlets, just because the station says things they agree with. Idealogues are interesting, if not particularly productive to have conversations with.

And only a minority of media starts with party loyalties and then use that to set their policies, mostly media that is outright owned by the party in question. The more normal state of affairs is for the newspaper or TV channel to have a set of institutional ethics and then support the parties who line up with that.

Fox is outright owned by the party in question? MSNBC is outright owned by the party in question? CNN? NBC? NYT? Can Fox's behaviour be explained by adhering to their set of institutional ethics? Can MSNBCs? NYT? How about Huffpo? Should a rational person view anything sourced by X with as much skepticism as something sourced by Fox?

Last edited by fuzzygeek on Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

KysenMurrin wrote:There's a difference between clear partisan bias, and bias combined with misrepresentation of facts.

Would you argue Fox is the only outlet guilty of the second, and all other outlets are pure and pristine? Or is it a question of degree?

For me, it's a matter of degree. Most media has a bias. It's evident if you watch it.

But for Fox, not only do they have a bias, they actually work towards alienating those who don't fit their viewing demographic.

All while touting Fair and Balanced, and We Report, you decide.

I'm reminded of a time when Fox News went on a warpath, because the NEA classified Video Games as Art. They brought on a Video Game Expert (I believe it was a developer) to discuss the topic, and then went with the Call Of Duty angle. There was no talk about other games that aren't Call of Duty, that was their angle. The bloody mindless violence of Call of Duty being considered art.

I never said that. I said Fox acts like it's owned by the republican party. Other media don't (again, except MSNBC, which is a reaction to Fox).

Journalists may be left-leaning, although it's more like "left-leaning" as in they actually pay attention to the facts in a lot of cases. Media owners are smart people who know where their bread are buttered and are anything but left-leaning.

Saying that media has a socialist bias here in Europe would mark you as a raving loon. The left-leaning serious media over here is a minority (but still significant), most serious media has a conservative bent, while sensationalist press is sensationalist press.

Last edited by Paxen on Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

On one hand Fox's editorial/opinion people are strictly on the Republican side of everything. On the other hand I think Shep Smith is the best news anchor on the three cable news networks. Then on someone else's hand Fox & Friends is a thing that exists.

Journalists may be left-leaning, although it's more like "left-leaning" as in they actually pay attention to the facts in a lot of cases.

The sad truth is most journalists don't know enough about the stuff they cover to truly know the facts or call out the bullshit presented as facts.

We live in a society where people born on third base constantly try to steal second, yet we expect people born with two strikes against them to hit a homerun on the first pitch.

Not political, but clearly has no clue of foreign geography - not that many watching would notice.

Yeah, geography is not their strong point.

Figures don't lie, but apparently liars can graph. Note the distances between data points and the distance between dates, to force the graph to look like a steady rise. Here's the graph as it should be:

Awe come yo! There is a great many Conservative thinking people, like myself, and groups that do not like his position, fically speaking. haha I would say that most things in most of our societies is, now more than ever, based on the fical side of things.